This need for individual expression is a legitimate one, but if it is to be satisfied without prejudice to the comprehensibility of the environment as a whole, a general priority system must be proposed, and it will be argued here that such a system must necessarily give preference to absolute over temporal ends.
This is based on the argument that architecture, like any form of communication requires clarity and comprehensibility to be effective. No message, if not understood, will get any point across. In fact, he goes further to state that the form of a building need not have any direct relation to its intent or function, just so long as it "contributes to the order, scale, harmony and pattern of the total environment."
A statement such as this, is likely to be contentious among many architects, but if we rephrase what the true "function" of a building is, to include integrating its environment, most should be able to see how relevant this is.
My contention is that the "total environment" mentioned here, is perhaps often larger than we think it is. It should not mean only our immediate built environment. It should extend further to encompass the entire human experience - our shared experiences, our collective unconscious, our very nature and our spirit for the future.
This blog, then, can be said to be a sort of Architectural Review, seen through this lens. I will post analytical views of remarkable (in all meanings of the word) buildings and how they contribute to the pattern of their total environment.
